Home

The ACT A303 Realignment Plan to Avoid Stonehenge

  1. Introduction
    1. My name is Graham Parker. I served with the Regular British Army for 43 years. Initially, I trained with the Royal Engineers and then transferred to the Royal Army Service Corps (later the Royal Corps of Transport) to specialize in transportation.
    2. I completed a three-year course with London University and was awarded their Certificate in Transport Studies. The three-year course included studies in Transport Economics, Transport and Economic Geography in Great Britain, and Studies in Contemporary Transport Problems. My thesis was the redesign of the traffic system and pedestrianisation of Bromley in south London.
    3. Following these studies I spent a year on an Army specialist course studying Civilian Transport Operations in the United Kingdom, which included railway planning and safety. During this time I spent periods of attachment with British Airways, British Road Services, and the ports of Newport and Swansea.
    4. I completed a study course at the British Civilian Transport Staff College in Woking. The course also included a special study in Switzerland of their civilian transport operations.
    5. Using motorways and Class A roads, I designed and introduced the routing system to be used by all British Forces vehicle convoys, including ammunition, moving throughout the United Kingdom during a period of National Emergency. During this work I worked closely with the Department of Transport in London.
    6. I spent three years with NATO in Belgium, where I was the Allied Command Europe Fund/Budget Manager for vehicle Procurement and Maintenance covering the sixteen NATO countries. One of my responsibilities was Cost Management Accounting for NATO equipment and this involved the identification of major projects where cost reductions could be implemented.
    7. In my last ten years with the Army I worked in Planning and Movement Operations. Working with the Belgian, Dutch and French Ministry of Defence Staffs, I was responsible for calculating road capacity on the Continent for the movement of road convoys transiting Belgium, Holland and Germany.
    8. The Project Team that has assembled the new plan has been supported and advised by several professionals including a barrister, two civil engineers who are highly experienced in road planning and design, and a scientist who has specialized in pollution problems in the city of Salisbury for the past four years.
  2. The Background
    1. I shall give evidence on the background, development and design of the A303 Realignment Plan that will enable the protection of the World Heritage Site (WHS) at Stonehenge. The plan consists of two parts. Part One is the Salisbury bypass (approximately 19 kms), and Part Two is the link from the bypass near the Beehive Park and Ride to the current A303 at Beacon Hill east of Amesbury (approximately 11 kms). During my evidence I shall refer either to the bypass or the link. Reference to both parts together will be referred to as the new scheme.
    2. The English Heritage objective is to secure and fully preserve the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge:
      “The reunification of Stonehenge which restores its dignity and its sense of isolation set amongst 450 Scheduled Ancient Monuments in an ancient landscape of chalk downland and the protection of the archaeology forever, is the ultimate and most important environmental objective of the Stonehenge Master Plan.”
    3. To meet this objective numerous alternative routes were considered for a local Bypass of Stonehenge, but all were unacceptable because of damage to the environment and/or the archaeology. It was therefore concluded that the only method of removing the A303 roadway from Stonehenge was to place it in a tunnel. The tunnel envisaged at this time was a Cut and Cover, now replaced by a short bored tunnel, however even this option still requires a ‘Cut and Cover’ section across Stonehenge Bottom due to water problems. Five scheduled monuments and another eleven sites fall partly or fully within the Assessment area and could be affected by the tunnel. Moreover, whilst damage to or destruction of these sites fails to meet the English Heritage objective, even the latest plans for a short bore tunnel will certainly have a damaging effect at the entrances because they will require the removal of a considerable amount of earth. Furthermore, the Cut and Cover section in Stonehenge Bottom would destroy archaeological remains.
    4. The current official scheme for a short bored tunnel will still leave traffic well within the World Heritage site (WHS) and this, together with the Portals, will detract from the potential gain of a large archaeological park, with both cultural and leisure implications.
    5. The A303 Realignment Plan offers a new scheme that will ‘secure and fully preserve the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge’, thus handing on to future generations a WHS without archaeological damage and disturbance by traffic. Furthermore, the plan offers the opportunity to incorporate other published routes for the A36, which would enable the solving of several traffic problems in South Wiltshire within the one scheme. It is recommended that the plan is accepted as the ‘Government Preferred Route’ for the protection of the WHS.
    6. Publication of the ‘Management Plan Consultative Draft’ in September 1999 called for the views of all those with an interest in the World Heritage Site. Indeed, Lady Gass, Chair, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Group, said:
      “We look forward to receiving your comments on this consultative document.”
    7. Although this Report was primarily concerned with the Management Plan for the WHS and not the Master Plan for the road planning, it was thought essential to draw the attention of English Heritage to the A303 Realignment Plan as it would provide a major enhancement of the Management Plan and the WHS would be truly and fully restored to its natural landscape.
    8. A detailed survey of the roads within a ten-mile radius of Stonehenge was carried out along with examination of relevant Highways Agency and County Council documentation on road planning held by the District Reference Library. It was noted that there was much emphasis on the need for a Salisbury Bypass and the major traffic problems associated with heavy vehicles in the Wylye and Bourne valleys.
    9. The aim was to ensure that in seeking a solution for the roads problem at Stonehenge, no opportunity was missed by not taking account of the other problems within the area where a comprehensive solution might contribute to ‘best and economic value’ for South Wiltshire.
    10. Whilst separate consultants were given a remit for the Stonehenge problem and the Salisbury area, it might possibly have been more cost effective if one consultancy had been given the brief to carry out an overall study of the area to include both Stonehenge and Salisbury. There now seems little doubt that the proposed A303 Realignment Plan might have been obvious had one consultancy been fully responsible for the two areas of study.
    11. The study undertaken looked at the whole area between Stonehenge and Salisbury resulting in the possibility of a viable plan based principally on the already designed Wiltshire County Council northern bypass for Salisbury and a simple road link from that bypass near the Beehive Park and Ride to the A303 east of Amesbury. After much study, many visits to the area and walking the ground and roads, it was soon clear that not only was a bypass possible for Stonehenge, but that other major road problems might be solved at the same time.
      The plan could:
      1. remove completely the problem of ground destruction and damage to archaeological sites in the vicinity of the WHS.
      2. enable all metalled roads within the WHS to be grassed over (9 kilometers).
      3. additionally, provide a bypass for each of:
        1. Salisbury City;
        2. Amesbury Town (the local traffic on the A345 at Countess Roundabout would be relieved of the A303 traffic);
        3. Winterbourne Stoke (much less damaging to archaeology and landscape than the Highways Agency proposals);
        4. the A338 villages in the Bourne valley ; and
        5. the A36 villages in the Wylye Valley (already a £32M scheme which would be improved in benefit by adoption of the A303 Realignment plan).
      4. provide a low cost opportunity for the completion of a Salisbury bypass, thus removing much of the traffic from the city and thereby contributing immensely to a reduction of pollution in the city and the heavy pollution problem in Wilton.
      5. improve the environment for many villages in South Wiltshire.
      6. produce a safety stop-over for tired drivers during the long distance between London and the West Country, as the route would pass alongside the existing Salisbury Beehive Park and Ride site and the proposed Wilton Park and Ride site.
      7. provide a future possibility of direct access roads to Boscombe Down airfield and Porton Down Establishment. Porton Down establishment has already announced the doubling of its size within three years.
      8. produce a significant financial cost saving of an estimated £32million in respect of the Wylye Valley Relief road, which the A303 Realignment Plan will provide.
      9. fit well with the east –west multi-modal route study on its passage through South Wiltshire. It is certainly clear that as a main feeder route to the A303 east-west route, the realigned and much improved A36 would be of considerable economic benefit for South Wiltshire.
    12. In September 1999 a draft A303 Realignment Plan text and a rough sketch of the possible new route was sent to English Heritage and the Highways Agency for comment. Without any discussion with the author, the Highways Agency obtained a General Comment Report from a Halcrow consultant and used this to brief a Minister that no assessment should be made. Having obtained a copy of this Report it was soon clear that much of the comment expressed was incorrect and misleading. Moreover, it was obvious that the author had not seen the site. Subsequent discussion with the Halcrow consultant has established that he was asked to provide some general comment so that the Highways Agency could discuss the draft with the author. He confirmed that he had not visited the site. He was certainly surprised to learn that his comments had been used to brief a Minister. He said that he placed a ‘disclaimer’ on the document to say that it was for client use only.
    13. Presentations have been given to Salisbury District Parishes and open public meetings, including two well-attended meetings in the Salisbury City Hall and an excellent seminar in the Salisbury Guildhall. Public interest was strong. Idmiston Parish Council, at a special meeting, voted unanimously and produced a written statement that they fully supported assessment of the plan. More recently, a full presentation has been given to the Salisbury District Council Cabinet. They also voted to support assessment and asked Wiltshire County Council for a Meeting to discuss its merits.
    14. A ‘Test Referendum’ was distributed to four Salisbury Wards in July 2000. This outlined the new scheme and explained the advantages and disadvantages and asked if there was support for a professional assessment of the Plan. The result was a 96.7% yes! Conducted by the Association of Council Taxpayers of South Wiltshire (ACT), the total questionnaire return numbers were similar to those returned for the official Salisbury Transport Study.
    15. It is considered to be essential for future road studies, like that for the WHS, to include the wider aspects of an area, in order that full account is properly taken of issues that could affect and improve the outcome and to ensure that, overall, the focus on ‘best value’ in monetary terms is achieved. Perhaps the South West Regional Transport Committee will in future be in a better position to monitor such studies and ensure that where possible road problems receive the widest visibility before major funding is committed.
  3. Outline of the A303 Realignment Plan
    1. The plan utilizes the already studied and partly designed official Salisbury northern bypass. This bypass was an option prepared and consulted on several years ago. It was not progressed at the time, although shown to have good levels of public support and good positive economic benefits. It was considered that the southern route could be constructed in self-contained phases, each being cost effective, whereas the northern route would need to be wholly completed before any benefit was available.
    2. The southern route was selected as the preferred route for a Salisbury bypass in 1995. However, it was finally cancelled following the 1997 Post A36 Inquiry Report. The Inquiry focussed its Findings on the severe environmental flood plain damage that could occur south of the city and no alternative solution has since been identified.
  4. Description of the A303 Realignment route
    1. The ‘A303 Stonehenge Improvement, The “Parker Route” Assessment Report, Volume 1’, shows a road line examined in some detail by Mott MacDonald civil engineers on behalf of the Highways Agency. This road is acceptable as it stands, but it is essential to understand that whilst it provides sufficient information for other assessments, like the Archaeology Assessment to be carried out, it is still at a very early stage of feasibility and there will be parts of the road that will require adjustment.
    2. In order to provide an easier and simpler understanding of the new scheme proposal, it has been decided to use the General Map shown at Appendix 1 as the basis for descriptive text in respect of the detail of the recommended route and the alternative option lines to be considered. The inclusion of these alternative options are considered to be essential at this stage in order to provide maximum flexibility until such time as very detailed surveys are completed and accepted by the local people.
    3. Whilst the general line of the road follows the Mott MacDonald Assessment there are several option changes shown on the general map, Appendix 1. It is therefore important to provide an explanation of the important points regarding these options. Using the letters A to D shown on the map the following comments are made:
      1. ‘A’: This section of road is on the same line as the Wylye Valley relief road at present being submitted for funding by the County Council. It is important to note that this funding requirement of £32M would be saved under the new scheme. The road follows alongside the existing A360 line for several kilometres. It would not be acceptable to go online with the A360 as that is a very busy road, especially during Salisbury city peak hour traffic flows.
      2. ‘A1/2’: At the western end of the Wiltshire County Council proposed Wylye Valley Relief road two alternative routes can be seen. They are included in order to offer the possibility for local residents to eventually participate in a consultation exercise on which route is selected. A1 and A2 routes would ensure that all the villages are kept clear of the new road, unlike the present County Council selection that results in direct impact on the village of Stapleford.
      3. ‘B’: This link is part of the ‘Yellow route’ that formed the northern route in earlier plans for a Salisbury northern bypass.
      4. ‘C’: This is the proposal for a Salisbury Eastern link that was published by the Highways Agency at the September 1999 Consultative Exhibition, held in the Salisbury Guildhall. This section was also part of the ‘Yellow route’ as described in (3) above.
      5. ‘D’: The A303 Realignment link is approximately 11 kms long and extends from Beacon Hill on the A303 down to the Beehive Park and Ride. As it approaches the reserve runway at Boscombe Down airfield there are three possible options for its onward line (D1, D2, D3):
        1. ‘D1’: Whilst accepting that the runway must remain operational at all times, Government approval would be required for the road to cross under it. Following approval, a tunnel construction using the same technique recently used at Junction 15A of the M1 could be carried out. This technique is called ‘Box Jacking’ and enables a preformed tunnel structure to be slid in under the road or runway. It is understood that the cost of the 45 metre tunnel under the M1 was approximately £7M and therefore a 150 metre tunnel might cost some £20M. The road then swings west and crosses directly to co-locate with the A345.
        2. ‘D2’: This option would be to swing the road around the end of the M.O.D. fence-line at the southern end of the airfield and move centrally down the area between the A345 and the A338.
        3. ‘D3’: This option would be to place a similar tunnel construction as at D1 under the large grassed area at the southern end of the runway, should it prove impossible to go under the area shown at D1. Both options at D1 and D3 would ensure that the road line is kept well away from the housing at Idmiston and Boscombe.
      6. Whilst D1 would be ideal, moving the road line to D2 or D3 to co-locate with the north/south line of the A345 would minimize the length of road running through open countryside. Crossing to link alongside the A345 was an earlier option, but was not selected following Idmiston Parish Council agreeing unanimously with the idea of a line running down the centre of the valley. Account is now taken of more recent objections.
      7. Summary
        1. The Mott Macdonald Assessment has identified that a line through the area is feasible, nevertheless it is important for local people to be shown that there is still flexibility within certain areas and that they will have an opportunity to participate in a proper consultation exercise.
        2. The Salisbury bypass has a total length of 19 kms and the A303 Realignment link has a length of 11 kms.
        3. Where possible the bypass and link have been co-located alongside an existing road such as the A345 and the A360. This considerably reduces its position on open countryside.
        4. This new scheme will remove all roads from the WHS and enable the removal and grassing over of some 9 kms of roads within the WHS, thus giving English Heritage the very best opportunity to achieve their environmental objective.
  5. Comment on the Highways Agency Assessment Report

    It is considered important to assist the Inquiry by commenting on the Mott MacDonald, “Parker Route” Assessment Report Volume 1, in the same order that comments are listed in the document. Furthermore, in order to assist in identifying the detail of the Report at the start of each comment the relevant Mott Macdonald paragraph number is shown in brackets.

    1. Introduction
      1. (1.2.1.1) The last sentence of this paragraph states: ‘This assessment compares the Parker route with the Do-minimum situation’. The new scheme is an alternative to the Published Tunnel Scheme and as such the report should perhaps have read, ‘This assessment compares the Parker route with the published tunnel scheme’. It is essential to start with the aim being absolutely correct. Get the aim wrong, and the rest of the document could also be wrong.
      2. (1.2.13) The elements listed are not correct. The first element should be the construction of 19 kms of the Salisbury bypass and the second element should be the construction of the A303 realignment link of 11 kilometres.
    2. Existing Conditions
      1. (2.1.1.1) This refers to table 2.1 where Traffic Flows have been estimated for 2008. However, if we take the first line of the A303 and look under Traffic Flow, we see that high growth in 2008 is estimated to be up to 40,000 vehicles AADT. On Figure 1.3 of Volume 2 of the “Parker Route” Assessment, we find that high growth for 2008 on the A303 directly east of Amesbury is shown as 40,300 AADT. The Base Data used by the Highways Agency for the Official Scheme is shown in the Report of Traffic Surveys, October 2000. (produced by Count on Us Ltd for Mott MacDonald). At page 15 of this excellent report we see that the base year (2000) count at this same point was 18,964.
      2. We find that in the Wiltshire County Council Forecast Growth Rates Document (The Travel Report Wiltshire 2000), the Do-Minimum Growth Rate forecast for 1999 to 2011 is + 15.4% (NRTF high growth), which is equivalent to a rate of 1.2% per annum. If we apply this to the Base Data for the same point east of Amesbury we see a figure of 20,859 by 2008.
      3. The Department of Transport Official National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF) (Great Britain) 1997, modified 12th December 2003, estimate the growth of traffic from 1996 to 2016 to be 38%, which gives an annual growth rate of 1.9% per annum. Should these figures be applied, then by 2008 the total figure for the same point would be 22,043.
      4. Whilst there are circumstances (like an estimate of traffic movement resulting from the future growth of housing east of Amesbury) that may change the Base Data in certain areas, the importance of showing the above figures is to demonstrate that the % lift that has been applied for the Base Data shown in Figure 1.3 of Volume 2, is very high. Taking the figure of 40,000 shown in Table 1. this would require an annual lift from 2000 to 2008 of more than 13% per annum. It is considered that this far exceeds both the Wiltshire County Council and the Department of Transport NRTF estimates. This very high figure would produce a substantial difference when used in a COBA calculation and should be observed with suspicion.

        Traffic growth is a vital element of the Assessment, both in regard to road capacity and cost calculation. An over-estimated figure for growth will lead to distortion of any area that it is applied to. There would certainly be a significant effect within a COBA calculation with such a high figure as used in the Assessment. This over-estimation is to be seen elsewhere within these comments.

    3. Description of the Route
      1. (3.1.1.1) It is important to point out that whilst some alternative options came to light as the Assessment developed, there were several options that were identified more than three years ago. Indeed, it was fully understood that as this is a ‘stage two’ assessment and in the early days of a feasibility study, there would probably be other changes that would be effective if the plan was taken forward.
      2. (3.2) There are no comments to be made on the detail of the work completed for the detail of the line and engineering shown in the Assessment, except to say that it must be understood that there are, at certain points, alternative options on the road line that must remain available as a choice for consultation with local residents.
    4. Cultural Heritage
      1. (5.3.2.3) It is understood that the whole of Wiltshire is an area of Archaeological Interest and the detail that has been produced along the Assessment defined route is admirable in the thoroughness shown. However, the important aspect to accept is not just that level of archaeology along the route area in question, but in the comparison to be found between the area of the Published Scheme and the Assessment line new scheme. This is the key to the investigation and the conclusions that have to be drawn as to which area will result in the least damage to the national archive of archaeology.
      2. Summary
        1. (5.3.5.2) The Assessment of the overall effect of the new scheme is not considered to be a truly fair overall assessment. For example, the Published Scheme only shows the ‘principal’ archaeology sites, whereas the Assessment lists far more detail of sites. The summary should have made a ‘like for like’ comparison of which site would involve the least damage. This surely should be the basis of an alternative assessment. We are already aware that there may be other hidden sites in both areas but a choice between the two schemes should be made.
          At Appendix 2 a Comparison of the Permanent Effects of the Published Scheme with the Alternative A303 Realignment Scheme (new scheme) has been tabled. The comparison compares those Major Adverse and Moderate Adverse sites that will be subject to partial or full destruction for the two schemes. The result is remarkable. The Published Scheme has five Major Adverse and six Moderate Adverse, whereas the Alternative Scheme has only one Major Adverse (that can probably be avoided in any case) and five Moderate Adverse sites. Moreover, with mitigation many of these sites can be avoided or, if necessary, covered with a layer of chalk five feet deep as was carried out on the M20 Motorway near Folkestone some years ago.
          There seems to be little doubt that the Published Scheme would cause considerable and more unacceptable direct damage to the World Heritage Site than the alternative. Nevertheless, account still must be taken of the areas where an option change to the road may occur. But as regards “Archaeological Beneficial Assessments” the alternative would achieve the very highest standard possible by ensuring that the whole World Heritage Site remains an untouched archaeological jewel for future generations. If any archaeological damage has to be accepted perhaps the WHS should be given absolute priority for protection.
    5. Landscape
      1. (5.4.4.1) The advantages for the WHS are well said, but there is a slight misunderstanding as regards the comments regarding residential properties. The bypass section of the plan covers the area where much thought and planning has already been given to the implementation of a Salisbury bypass. This is an essential feature of the Alternative scheme. The resulting effect of constructing a road on the ‘Yellow Line’, (northern bypass), published for all to see some time ago, is well known. Unless there are considerable objections to a Salisbury bypass, the resulting effects on the landscape should not be used as a negative against the WHS.
      2. The following sentence ‘In addition it does not offer a significant reduction in traffic on the A36 in the Wylye Valley’ is wildly incorrect. In the August 1996 A36 Salisbury Bypass SACTRA Assessment (by Rendel Palmer Triton) the reduction in traffic by implementation of the bypass, even at Low Growth was shown to be an 82.5% reduction in traffic. This also relates back to an earlier comment (see 5. b. above) on the probable misuse of Growth Rates showing a major distortion.
      3. (5.5.5.9) It is vital for a proper understanding of the area to appreciate that a considerable length of road is actually co-located alongside existing roads, namely the A345 and A360. This co-location is a deliberate attempt to reduce the impact on noise and other activities that would otherwise affect birds and wildlife. One other advantage of the Alternative plan might be that any disturbed wildlife might indeed make its way to a much calmer and quieter 30 square kilometre area of the WHS that would be completely devoid of traffic.
    6. Water
      1. Unlike the Published Scheme there would seem to be no difficulties with water on the Alternative route, except possibly during construction activity. In the assessment for the Published Scheme there seems to have been little detailed risk analysis carried out on the problem of underground fissures and streams that could divert, or even ‘back-up’ and divert, when hitting the wall of the underground tunnel.
      2. There should be serious concern that with the tunnel construction forming a large dam, water could build up during the winter and cause flooding behind the dam in the area of Stonehenge Bottom.
    7. Noise and Vibration
      1. (5.8.5.1) As regards the area east of Salisbury and the housing that would be close to the route, this has to be an acceptable fact if the city is to have a bypass. But it is interesting to note that the significant reduction in noise that would result from the removal of much of traffic from the inner core of the city of Salisbury has been missed in the Assessment. It would not be possible to eliminate all the changes in the variation of noise levels as a result of changing the road system in South Wiltshire.
      2. (5.14.3.17) It has always been accepted that there will be an increase in traffic on the Packway. However, it is explained later that the increase will not overload the road capacity. There will be an increase in noise, but it should be noted that many homes are located away from the road line. Together with the increase in Visitor Centre Traffic Countess road will have an increase in the level of noise. But should the Visitor Centre be re-located then the increase might be acceptable. Account should also be noted of the huge noise reduction for the lower part of Countess Road by the removal of the A303. In respect of the increased noise level on the eastern side of Salisbury, it is believed that Wiltshire County Council received little comment when it was placed before the public in September 1999.
    8. Air Quality
      1. (5.9.6.2) As a separate witness is to give evidence on pollution it is not necessary to comment in detail on the Assessment report. But it is questionable whether the content of the summary is anywhere near being correct. There are serious levels of pollution in Salisbury and the most serious appears to be in Wilton. The removal of much of the through traffic from the city must make a substantial difference to the pollution levels and this does not appear to have been appreciated in the summary.
      2. (5.14.3.19) It is correct to say in the Assessment that the impact on human health would be negligible for the line of the new road, however the Assessment omits to give credit for the areas within the city where substantial amounts of traffic would be removed.
    9. Pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and community effects
      1. (5.10.3.2) A major benefit has not been identified in the Assessment. There is a severe problem of traffic congestion along the road through Laverstock. Many vehicles use this road as a ‘rat run’ to avoid having to queue on the A30 approach into Salisbury. The Local Schools’ Director has said that if the eastern bypass was to remove the vast majority of vehicles from outside the schools it would be a most welcome addition. Not only would it produce a major reduction in traffic, but also it would increase the safety of the children arriving and leaving school.
      2. (5.10.3.3) It is important to recognize that because of the current high risk of traffic accidents on the A344 junction with the A303, many people driving between Shrewton and Amesbury already take the Packway road for safety reasons. Moreover, because of the delays on the A303 during the summer high season it is much quicker to use the Packway.
      3. (5.10.3.5) The additional flows predicted on the Packway are dealt with later. Suffice it to say at this point that the Packway has always been accepted as a road that would have increased traffic. It is a good road and, providing the relevant safety measures are implemented for that increase, the other benefits elsewhere would justify its use.
      4. (5.10.3.6) The relief in severance within Salisbury is highly significant. The huge reduction in traffic on Churchill Way would offer an outstanding contribution as regards reducing severance. It would also be significant in both the Wylye and Bourne Valleys. Missing from the Assessment is the severance that will occur with the Published Scheme when the new road is constructed through the Butterfield Down residential estate. This road will enable traffic, including HGVs to bypass Amesbury town when they need to travel south. The Alternative new scheme would mean that this road would not be required as traffic would transit south on the new A303 link.
      5. (5.10.3.11) With a major length of the bypass and the link being co-located along existing roads, the effect on byways should be much reduced.
      6. (5.10.3.15) The line of the road as it leaves the A303 at Beacon Hill has been replaced into the position prior to the work of the Assessment team. It now leaves the present road line on the west side of Beacon Hill and runs almost alongside the Solstice Park. This offers major advantages for Solstice Park as the hotel, restaurant and fuel facilities will be visible to the driver as he drives past. This facility is regarded as major beneficial for drivers on the A303. The small change in line will add little extra distance, moreover the new line might avoid the Major Adverse archaeological site on Beacon Hill.
      7. (5.10.3.19) It is highly probable that the bypass will be built at some date in the future. The destruction of property can probably be avoided with different road lines.
      8. (5.10.5.2) The concern about reduced accessibility is not really justified as vehicle travellers are unlikely to find entry from the west to be problematic once the new site and facilities are up and running.
    10. Vehicle Travellers
      1. (5.11.3.1) The Assessed route would have a loss of view of Stonehenge for drivers passing by. Nevertheless, with the removal of the present A303 dual carriageway from Countess roundabout, an entirely new site is proposed for the Visitor Centre at Kings Barrow Ridge. A redefined use of this section of road, which would enable vehicles to drive up to a position at the Visitor Centre from which they could view the Stones, has already been designed. Detail of the proposed new site will be posted on the internet at www.stonehengesolution.co.uk.
      2. (5.11.3.6) The Assessment states: “The A303 Realignment section comprises a considerably longer route (approximately 25km in total compared to 17km) than the existing A303 and as such, may be considered to contribute to driver frustration on the part of regular users of the A303 owing to increased journey distance. However, it is expected that traffic using the route would encounter only a 1 minute delay over the existing situation (for free flowing traffic), while during periods of congestion, the route would be quicker. Thus it is considered that the route would result in a slight benefit in this respect.”
        This is a very important statement by the Highways Agency consultants. Should the Inquiry take the view that the overall potential destruction at the WHS is not in the interest of its national and international importance, a replacement road structure could indeed be introduced that would not be any worse, and under some conditions better than what is found at the WHS today.
      3. (5.11.3.8) The important point to stress with this comment is that many Shrewton people use the Packway today in order to avoid the dangerous junction of the A344 and the A303.
      4. (5.11.3.9) Driver stress in respect of accidents is a very important element to consider with the prospect of ‘tunnel travel’. Recent accidents on the Continent and subsequent fires and loss of life illustrate two important facts. Two very dangerous elements are always present in tunnels: highly inflammable fuel and the means of ignition. Driver stress is likely to be increased when it is considered that when tunnel accidents occur, such as recent incidents on the Continent, the resulting fires can cause serious loss of life, which probably could have been avoided on an open road.
      5. (5.11.3.11) and (5.11.3.12). Traveller care is an essential element of good road design. The additional lay-bys available with the new scheme are considered to be a principal feature for future long distance travel associated with much of the through traffic on the A303. The Solstice Park facilities would also be at the head of the link section of the new scheme; they would provide access to fuel, hotel and rest facilities. The lay-bys and Solstice Park facilities provide a major beneficial element of the new scheme.
      6. (5.11.5.1) The Summary in the Assessment does not match the advantages offered with a ‘tunnel free’ re-aligned A303. One highly important factor would be the reduction in stress for thousands of drivers who would not have to negotiate the heavily congested road through Salisbury during morning and evening peaks.
    11. Land Use
      1. With Government approval for crossing under the Boscombe Down airfield runway, either at a northern point or at a point lower down, demolition of property would be avoided. Even without a tunnel under the runway it would not be essential to disturb property.
      2. (5.12.3.12) The location of the new scheme so close to the Beehive Park and Ride offers very considerable advantages for Salisbury and its visitors. Not only would it provide excellent access from a major route crossing through Wiltshire, but it would enhance its financial feasibility, ensuring that the Park and Ride site remains financially cost effective.
      3. (5.12.3.13) The Director of Wyvern College (the school located by the playing fields) has expressed support for the new road scheme. Today there is considerable disturbance for the school with traffic ‘rat running’ on the road directly alongside it. The new road is highly unlikely to adversely affect the playing fields, but it will be considerably advantageous for relieving congestion on the road outside the school, thus improving safety for the children.
      4. (5.12.3.24) The possible extent of housing development north of the Portway has been well known for some time. The construction of 630 new houses in this area will obviously add strain to the current layout of roads if the council has no plan to support the new development. The proximity of the new scheme will certainly offer residents a better option for movement off the site as the close proximity to the new road system will enable easier movement to the north, south, east or west. It will almost certainly ensure that the increase in traffic from the site will be able to avoid the City when moving to the south.
      5. (5.12.3.30) The ground next to Tesco was originally considered as a Park and Ride site, but it was understood that subsequent studies were examining a site further out towards Petersfinger. There was concern, in any case, with the Tesco site as the area is already subject to severe congestion and it would make sense to locate such an important facility well clear of this area.
      6. (5.12.3.31) The position of the new scheme offers considerable advantages for ensuring that a high proportion of customer traffic could use the new road system to enter the potential ASDA site, thus ensuring further traffic relief in the city.
      7. (5.12.5.1) As shown earlier demolition of properties can be avoided and the school will welcome the opportunity of improving children’s safety. Careful siting in respect of the Portway area could provide important advantages for residents’ use of cars.
    12. Plans and Policies
      1. (5.14.3.1) The new scheme would have a significant effect on the eight roads leading into the city of Salisbury. Without doubt, the removal of a considerable proportion of both heavy and light traffic from the medieval city would ensure offer a much calmer future for those who live and work in the city area and environs. There could be a substantial reduction on the heavily used A345 as traffic approaching Salisbury from the north could transit on the new A303. This reduced congestion would be of great benefit to the Park and Ride scheme, thus enabling its busses to operate more efficiently within required time schedules.
      2. (5.14.3.2) and (5.14.3.3). The statements made by The Highways Agency Consultants outlined in these paragraphs, illustrate the very considerable value of the new scheme. They record:
        “The route would help support the A303/A30 corridor as a strategic corridor to the South West, albeit on a less direct route. It would therefore be consistent with plans and policies at national, regional and local level to upgrade this strategic route to the south west.
        The route and eastern link would effectively provide a bypass to Salisbury for traffic on the A36, where none exists at present. This would provide benefits to the city and would support policy objectives to enhance the city’s accessibility and attractiveness as a place in which to live, shop, work and to visit. This would be consistent with the transportation Strategy for Salisbury, the Local Plan and the Salisbury and Wilton Local Plan and would support relevant Local Plan policies to encourage conservation of the built environment, encourage tourism and promote the vitality and vitality and viability of local communities.”
      3. (5.14.3.8) The new scheme would secure substantial beneficial effects in the World Heritage Site by the complete removal of all traffic and evidence of the A303 and the A344, in substantial conformity with the aims and objectives of the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan. The comment of adverse effect on 80 known archaeological sites is not correct. There are only a small number of sites that might be touched or close to the line of the road and all of these could be avoided or bridged with 5 foot of chalk as was done several years ago on the M20 sites near Folkestone.
      4. (5.14.3.9) This paragraph fails to assess the landscape settings properly. Firstly, a major length of the new scheme co-locates alongside to existing A345 and the A303, thus reducing impact on open land very considerably. Secondly, as regards the crossing of the Avon near Stratford Sub-Castle, the challenge would be for architects to produce an outstanding design that would fit well into the landscape. Whilst this is probably the most sensitive environmental area on the route of the bypass it has to be remembered that to achieve the full protection for future generations of a World Heritage Site cannot be achieved at no cost. The cost with the tunnel scheme is the very serious destruction of archaeology and the remaining presence of 21st century detritus within the WHS area. Whereas the new scheme’s principal cost is to bridge a river right at the end of the Woodford Valley and to see a road from only certain views on the top of Old Sarum site. The question that has to be asked is, ‘ what is the price are we prepared to pay for the proper protection of an international archaeological jewel and world renowned area?’.
    13. Traffic and Economic Assessment
      1. There is very serious concern by our civil engineer, who has examined the results of the Traffic Model, that there may be flaws in the use of information regarding traffic flows used.
        He has been trying to obtain from the Highways Agency the benefits and dis-benefits on the COBA links for the Salisbury Traffic Model. This is in order to see that the two models, which have been brought together to include in the Summary of Economic Analysis, contain in particular, the full benefits from implementing the bypass. He also wished to know what initial Growth Factor was used for the Base Data input. It is unfortunate that at this time the information is not available. Our civil engineer has therefore said that he is unable to confirm that he is in a position to accept the Assessment Report Traffic Model data as it stands.
      2. Examination of Traffic Flow Data.
        1. The Basic Data Documentation is a vital part of the information required for a Model. As regards ‘Traffic flows’ it is essential to ensure that best forecasts are used. If this information is poor, then the resulting output from the Traffic Model could be wildly inaccurate.
        2. The Basic Documentation for initial input is provided in the Highways Agency ‘A303 Stonehenge Report on Traffic Surveys October 2000’. produced for Mott MacDonald by Count on us Ltd: it relates to Stage 2 A303 improvement Scheme. The Report comprises the analysis of the traffic flow data through manual classification counts and automatic traffic counts and journey times surveys. The manual classified counts were conducted on 27th June 2000 between 0700-1900 hours at eleven sites. Further counts were carried out at some selected sites on 17th August and 19th August.
        3. These counts were produced in considerable detail and illustrate clearly the traffic movement in the A303 corridor at this time of the year (high season).
        4. The counts from the basic data are required to produce traffic forecasting information for decision-making and the construction of a COBA analysis.
      3. Growth Factors.
        1. The Department of Transport, National Roads Traffic Forecasting (NRTF) 1997 modified December 12th 2003, data is available and provides the basic guidance to be used, subject to local interpretation, for Great Britain.
        2. In addition, under the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997, Wiltshire County Council (WCC) has produced a report containing assessment levels of local road traffic in the administrative County of Wiltshire and a forecast of growth in those levels. Their ‘Travel Report, Wiltshire 2000’, is a first class document and explains that over the period 1999-2011, the target growth rates are 10% for both the Western Wiltshire Sustainable Transport Strategy Area and the Salisbury Transport Plan Area, 17% for the Devizes Community Area Transport Plan, and 8.3% for the remainder of Wiltshire.
        3. WCC has collected data at some 100 sites enabling comparison to be made with traffic flows from previous years.
        4. The first WCC annual Traffic Report was made in 1991 and since then continuous survey counting has produced very detailed results.
        5. The County Report records that comparing 2000 with 1990, traffic on ‘A’ roads has increased by approximately 10%, equivalent to an average growth rate of about 1% per year. On ‘B’ class roads the growth over the same period was about 14%, equivalent to an average growth rate of just over 1% per year. The Report further explains that the average daily traffic flows for 2000 indicate that both the A303 East of Longbarrow Crossroads and the A36 Churchill way in Salisbury are becoming overloaded. The criteria for overload on a single carriageway road is above 13,000 average Daily Traffic Flow, (Reference-Design Manual For roads and Bridges 1997).
        6. The reason for including the WCC Report is to illustrate that the growth rate over the past 10 years has been approximately 1% per year.
        7. Regarding future years forecasting, the department of Transport has produced and published the NRTF data. This shows:
          “a central estimate of the growth in traffic from 1996 to 2016 of 38% and from 1996 to 2031 of 60% ( a range of 24% to51% for 2016 and 36% to 84% for 2031 includes most of the uncertainty in the forecasts”).
        8. The Department has also produced Actual and Forecast Growth rates as follows (Table 20 NRTF 1997):
          Actual 1998 to 1996 + 17% traffic growth
          Forecast 1998 to 1996 + 25% traffic growth
          So, although only a difference of 8%, it illustrates that during this period traffic did not grow as anticipated. Moreover, with the County Council target growth for 1999-2011 being 8% then it might be justified to assume that the growth for Salisbury District would be approximately 1% per year.
        9. Again, the reason for the above explanation is because the following explains how the use of a growth factor for assessment of the new scheme (A303 Realignment Plan) may have been too high, thus producing incorrect interpretations of the projected traffic flows.
        10. There is a serious problem according to the Assessment in the Shrewton area. The importance of not over-estimating the traffic forecasting can be seen in the following example:
          The Base Data (Count on Us Ltd) referred to above shows the following for the flow on the A30 between Shrewton and Airman’s Corner in 2000 and using the Department of Transport Forecasts (high compared with that of Wiltshire County Council) we see:
          Year Shrewton to Airman’s Corner Movement Onwards
          Moves on A360 Moves on A344
          2000 8,118 (this is a 7.6% lift from 1996) 4,220 3,898
          2016 (38%) 10,410 5,622 4,788
          2031 (60%) 12,070 6,276 5,794

          However, the Halcrow Route Assessment Volume 2 Figure 1.3 for the same location shows the following:

          2008 14,100 (high growth) (i) 7,465 6,635
          2023 19,700 (high growth) (ii) 10,429 9,271
          (i) This is a 73% lift over 8 years or a growth rate of 9.2% per year.
          (ii) This is a 142% lift over 23 years or a growth rate of 6.2% per year.
        11. The reason for showing the above sets of figures is to illustrate the growth comparisons, because paragraph 6.3.1.10 of the Route Assessment Report Volume 1, infers that the huge rise of traffic on the Packway is due mainly to the flow of traffic through Shrewton on the A360 heading for Airman’s Corner, then on east along the A344, which would in future take the shortest route to the east of Amesbury by ‘rat-running’ along the Packway through Larkhill. This traffic could be 6,635 at high growth in 2008 and 9,271 high growth in 2023. With the traffic already on the Packway the road would be loaded to 10,995 in 2008 and 13,871 in 2023.
          But using the predicted official NRTF forecasts shown above at 38% and 60% the flow on the Packway is acceptable, at say 4,500 (2016) plus 4,996 places 9,496 on the Packway,
          4,300 @ 2008 uplifted by 1% per year to 2016 = 4,644 and,
          4,600 @ 2023 uplifted by 1% per year to 2031 = 4,968
          So,
          4,644 + 4,788 = 9,432 by 2016 on the Packway and,
          4,600 + 5,794 = 10,394 by 2031 on the Packway.
          By using the Department of Transport growth rate of 1.9% per year up to 2016 and 1.7% up to 2031, it shows that the Packway flow should remain within the 13,000 overload capacity.
          It should also be noted that the 1.7% and the 1.9% growth is still higher than the growth forecast produced by Wiltshire County Council for the period up to 2011.
  6. Comparison of Data used for Growth
    1. The following provides a comparison of the variations of growth percentages for the A360 road between Shrewton and Airman’s Corner in the Do-Nothing scenario.
      In ‘The Travel Report, Wiltshire 2000’ WCC reported at paragraph 6 that comparing growth between 1990 and 2000 on ‘A’ roads the growth percentage was an average of 1% per year and on ‘B’ roads just over 1% per year. Over the period 1999-2011 (at paragraph 12) they produced target growth rates of 10% for both the Western Wiltshire Sustainable Transport Strategy Area and Salisbury Transport Plan Area, 17% for the Devizes Community Area Transport Plan, and 8.3% for the remainder of Wiltshire.
      The WCC data therefore gives a forecast of growth for the Shrewton/Airman’s Corner of about 0.7%per year. This figure has been lifted to 1% for comparison purposes.

      2. WCC Forecast
      7% (use 1% as basis for calculation) 2008 - 8,767
      2023 - 9,985

      NRTF – Department of Transport
      1.9% (to 2016 use 2% as basis) 2008 - 9,351
      1.7% (to 2031 use 2% as basis) 2023 - 12,396

      Published Scheme
      Using 4.1% growth 2008 - 10,715
      (Stonehenge Area growth Rate 1992 to 2002?) 2023 - 15,773

      Published Scheme
      6.3% from DD 83. Figure 5.2. (high growth) 2008 - 12,300
      4.6% from DD 83 figure 5.3 (high growth) 2023 - 16,800

      Highways Agency Assessment (Parker route)
      9% Figure 1.3. High Growth 2008 - 14,100
      6.1% Figure 1.3 High Growth 2023 - 19,700
      From all of the above different growth results it must be pointed out that according to the document Count On Us Ltd, only some 24% would go on the A344, and thus give the figure to observe that might ‘rat run’ round the Packway.

    2. Conclusion
      With so many alternative Growth Rates to see it has been almost impossible to understand which ones should be used to provide the forecasts for future growth on the A360 between Shrewton and Airman’s Corner.
      WCC has carried out an impressive amount of work over the past ten years at 100 monitoring sites in Wiltshire forecasting that the growth rate near Shrewton will be about 1%. They have not noted, in their A303 monitoring, any excessive increase at the Shrewton area. Therefore, without any further detailed data to dispute the WCC figures it means that the growth rate at the Shrewton area of the A360 should be accepted at approximately 1%. This, in turn, would mean that any ‘rat running’ that might occur on the Packway following implementation of the new scheme would not overload the 13,000 road capacity. Finally, it is considered doubtful if the construction of the Solstice Park and the Amesbury housing development would have any significant effect on the growth rate at Shrewton.
  7. Concern with data used for Combined Traffic Model
    1. Comparison of traffic data used by Rendel Palmer Tritton for the A36 Salisbury Bypass in 1996 (SACTRA Assessment), see Appendix 3, and the data used by Halcrow for their Assessment of the Salisbury Traffic for 2008 (low growth) A303 Stonehenge Improvement, figure 1.3, is of special interest when considering its value within the combined Traffic Models of the Published Scheme and the new scheme.
    2. In 1996 the traffic count on the A36 near the Tesco supermarket was 36,000 AADT. The Parker route Assessment Report, Volume 2, 2008 high growth forecast figure 1.3 is 23,500. This is a decrease in traffic of 12,600 by 2008. The only change envisaged up to 2008 would be the completion of Salisbury Transport Plan Park and Ride scheme. However, the capacity of the Parks must be well below 12,500. Doubt must therefore be cast on the reliability of the Traffic Model.
    3. A similar situation can be seen on the A36 west of Wilton where the 1996 figure was 14,400 and we see the Assessment Report figure as 11,400. Again we see a decrease of 3000 vehicles. Is the Traffic Model robust?
    4. There is another major concern with the Traffic Model data. Whilst an additional increase is acceptable for the Published Scheme Traffic Model, with the inclusion of the Solstice Park and the Amesbury new housing development, there is concern with the figures on the A36 at Wilton and the A360 at Shrewton. Today the Wilton A36 route is an extremely busy road with a daily steady flow of HGV and light vehicles. In comparison, the A360 at Shrewton has nothing like the flow to be seen on the A36 at Wilton. It is difficult to believe that the Traffic Model is accurate, when it records that the A36 west of Wilton has less traffic forecast than the A360 road through the village of Shrewton. Assessment Report Volume 2, Figure 1.3. There are 1,700 less at low growth, and 2,700 less at high growth in 2008. In 2023 it is even worse with a difference of 5,700 less.
  8. Assessment Report Economic Analysis
    1. (6.4.1.1) Our civil engineer advisor has expressed concern with the high estimate for Main Works costs. The kilometre cost is calculated as £5.7million. Examples have therefore been obtained that are worthy of comparison at this very early stage.
    2. Scheme costs for comparison.
      1. A96 Blackburn and Kintor Bypass
        10 km
        £20 million
        Balfour Beatty for Scottish,
        1998,
        Rural.
      2. A50 Doveridge Bypass, Staffordshire/Derbyshire
        10.5 km
        £30 million
        HA 1998,
        Rural.
      3. A46 Newark to Lincoln Improvement
        13 km long
        £28 million Tender Cost
        Client was Alfred McAlpine for HA.
        Completed June 2003
        Rural in nature
      4. A6 Alvaston Bypass. Derby
        2.5 km long
        £10.5 million.
        Client was HA.
        Completed Dec 03
        Designed to Rural Standards
      5. A50 Derby Southern Bypass contract A.
        27 km
        £140 million
        HA.
        1997.
        Rural. (Note: this road consisted of both 2 and 3 lanes)
    3. Whilst it is fully accepted that costs can vary due to such items as bridges and build difficulty, it was considered important for the Inquiry to see that the above (1) to ((4) major projects cost an average of £2.8 million per kilometre. Project (5), which is of a similar length to the new scheme, cost an average of £5.1 million per kilometre, but it contained both 2 and 3 lanes.
  9. The Western Through Link
    1. Mott MacDonald identified a major problem with the traffic flow at an early stage in their road assessment work. Traffic moving from Shrewton on the A360 and heading for Airman’s Corner and onward movement along the A344 could well be tempted to take a shorter route than the new A303 route; by turning left at Airman’s Corner or even cutting through Shrewton village and ‘rat running’ along the Packway through Larkhill to rejoin the new A303 junction east of Amesbury. This problem was identified some three years ago and a provisional plan was prepared.
    2. With the removal of the A344 traffic destined for the A303 junction east of Amesbury, traffic would need to turn south at Airman’s Corner and stay on the new A303 section. Whilst the distance from Airman’s Corner to the new A303 junction east of Amesbury via the Packway is shorter than Airman’s Corner to the same junction east of Amesbury via the new A303, it would take longer to complete.
    3. The very first design of the A303 Realignment Plan identified that more local traffic between Shrewton and Amesbury would in any case use the Larkhill Packway. With this increase in traffic, safety precautions would be necessary as the road through Larkhill is a particularly busy route at peak times due to there being two Army camp entrances on the route. Moreover, the Durrington roundabout is busy at peak times, on account of military personnel moving from the east to their duty stations at Larkhill.
    4. Due to the increase in traffic, particularly at peak times, it might be advisable to place traffic lights at the camp entrances off the Larkhill road and again at Durrington roundabout. However, tests might suggest that they might operate only at peak time periods. The speed limit through Larkhill should be reassessed and if necessary reduced from 40mph to 30mph in view of the heavier use of the route. With these safety levels in place, drivers approaching Airman’s Corner from Shrewton would have a shorter driving time to reach the new A303 junction east of Amesbury if they remained on the new A303 route driving south.
    5. In order to provide drivers with a ‘cost and time effective option’ round the new A303 route, it is proposed that between Airman’s Corner and just north of Druids Cottage, a special ‘Western through Link’ road lane is provided. This would mean using the current, north-south left hand lane of the present A360 for this purpose. Just north of Druids Cottage the road would swing up and over the A360, and head for a new junction positioned north of Druids Head Farm on the A303. Here would be a new grade separated full movement junction near Ch. 4,000 (see Assessment Report, Volume 2, Figure 2.1). (see also map at Appendix 4) Consideration could then be given for the closure of the access compact junction at Ch.700. This could offer the residents of Winterbourne Stoke a more tranquil village, as there would be no through-route. They should be fully consulted, as the junction might be essential for farm or other local traffic.
    6. The new through link road explained above would be known as the Western Through Link and would be signed as such for traffic approaching Airman’s Corner from the west on the A360.
    7. The implementation of the Western Through Link would require a new additional lane to be constructed on the western side of the present A360 from Airman’s corner to a point north of Druids Cottage. The present south – north lane would become the normal A360 north – south lane and the new lane on the eastern side would become the new south – north lane. It is essential to introduce this new lane as any traffic moving south from Airman’s Corner that intended to turn right for Winterbourne Stoke could hold up A360 traffic intending to transit down and along the new A303 route. This Western Through Link will reduce the overall time to move between Airman’s Corner and the new A303 junction east of Amesbury and offer a shorter time than attempting to ‘rat run’ through Amesbury. See Appendix 4 for detail.
  10. The Aim
    1. The aim of the ACT A303 Realignment Plan, the new scheme, is the full protection of the World Heritage site at Stonehenge and its archaeology forever.
    2. The objectives of this Plan are to:
      • ensure that the strategic implications of any road improvements in South Wiltshire are fully considered in the long term,
      • remove, as far as possible, all 20th Century detritus from the WHS,
      • maximize the use of the Funding offered by the Government and achieve ‘best value’,
      • consider whether other local road schemes can be incorporated in the plan to improve traffic movement in the area as a whole,
      • give careful consideration for the environment, especially the future of villages that suffer from heavy through traffic,
      • minimize the damaging effect of new road construction on the open countryside by co-locating with existing roads as far as possible,
      • ensure that every effort is made to locate any new road to achieve maximum reduction of pollution levels for the population.
  11. Advantages and Disadvantages
    1. The advantages of the new scheme are that it will:
      1. remove completely the problem of ground destruction and damage to archaeological sites within the World Heritage Site.
      2. support the A303/A30 corridor as a strategic corridor to the South West.
      3. be consistent with plans and policies at national, regional and local level to upgrade this strategic route to the south-west.
      4. provide a long-awaited bypass for the medieval city of Salisbury. This would provide benefits to the city and would support policy objectives to enhance the city’s accessibility and attractiveness as a place in which to live, shop, work and to visit.
      5. be consistent with the Transportation Strategy for Salisbury, the Local Plan and the Salisbury and Wilton Local Transport Plan.
      6. support relevant Local Plan policies to encourage conservation of the built environment, encourage tourism and promote the vitality and viability of local communities.
      7. bring a major important road very close to the city of Salisbury thereby enhancing the opportunity for businesses to prosper.
      8. Reduce the operating costs for those businesses in the Salisbury area that need quick access to the major east west road system.
      9. ensure that, with the possibility of increased traffic from the potential Container Port development at Dibden Bay, the city of Salisbury and all the villages in the Wylye Valley will be free from this heavy traffic and the increased pollution it would have brought.
      10. enable the A343 designated Salisbury route from the A303 near Andover, to be re-designated further along the A303 west, with traffic remaining on the new A303 until the junction at the Beehive area just north of Salisbury. This will reduce the traffic that may approach overload on the A343 by 2023.
      11. reduce traffic on Castle Road. Traffic at present has to negotiate the city inner ring road and instead will be able to use the eastern link road around Laverstock.
      12. provide better safety for the children at the Laverstock schools by removing the ‘rat running’ traffic along the school road.
      13. reduce the pollution on the Salisbury city inner ring and the heavily polluted area in Wilton.
      14. provide excellent access to the Park and Rides on the north and west of the City.
      15. relieve the residents of Butterfield Down, Amesbury, from having a bypass running through their estate.
      16. provide a more cost effective road link to the south for new businesses operating on the future Solstice Park development.
      17. by the removal of the Winterbourne Stoke bypass to the south of the village leave the area to the north without a major road and a viaduct that does not sit easily in the landscape.
      18. by the removal of a significant volume of traffic from Salisbury, offer the reduction in vehicle exhaust emissions that the historic fabric of the city should enjoy.
      19. on the long drive between London and Exeter, provide motorists with an easy opportunity to take a short period of rest by using the Park and Ride access into Salisbury city.
      20. finally allow a series of ‘walks’ to be established all the way around the outside of the Stonehenge core area, thus giving visitors an opportunity to see and understand the historic landscape from areas and angles that will not be easily achievable with a tunnel system and its portals dividing up the eastern and western areas.
      21. save the high cost of approximately £32 million that is needed to produce a Wylye Valley Relief Road, as the bypass will effectively provide this scheme.
      22. save any future cost requirement to fund a Salisbury bypass. With the bypass still high on the local agenda this is a real opportunity to ensure that scarce funds are available for other deserving projects in future years. The funding and provision of this new scheme offers a major solution for five important areas of major traffic concern within South Wiltshire.
      23. avoid any serious water problems that could occur at Stonehenge Bottom. Whilst ground water functioning has been examined, there is still a concern that underground streams/fissures, that are almost impossible to identify could, as a result of the concrete tunnel acting as a dam, either divert water left, right or even under extreme pressure force a ‘back-up’ of water that might divert itself well away from the area. It might then lead to a possible change in water levels in the Avon, thus changing the environment of the river. During the winter season a build-up of water on the northern side of the tunnel might not only cause serious flooding of Stonehenge Bottom but any archaeology that may be located in that area may be damaged.
      24. allow construction of much of the new scheme without major disturbance to the existing road layout, unlike the Published Scheme which will inevitably cause difficult problems for a large part during its construction time.
      25. allow much better provision of safer cycle routes with the removal of much of the heavy traffic from the city area.
    2. The disadvantages of the new scheme are that it will:
      1. cause motorists on the new A303 to drive a further distance thus increasing their costs. Although this could be almost negligible for those travelling long-distance, for example between London and Exeter, those driving locally will see a dis-benefit in cost.
      2. mean that an additional 11 kms of road will be laid on the area of South Wiltshire Wiltshire down the western side of the Bourne Valley. However, as said earlier, the possibility of the construction of an extensive road for a northern Salisbury bypass may be inevitable. Providing the link is co-located as close as possible to the existing A345 after crossing the top of the Bourne Valley then the intrusion of the additional 11 kms may be well mitigated.
      3. not be possible to ensure that every house along the route is well clear of the route line. However, with today’s excellent techniques for landscaping, road engineers are capable of designing and constructing outstanding road works in the countryside. A good example of the mitigation that is possible can be seen on the Newbury bypass. Not only does the ‘land fit’ of the road now look excellent, but much wild life has now begun to filter into the side areas that looked so bare just after construction. There is every possibility that a design consultant will be able to show how the road envisaged can be well tucked into the local landscape.
      4. not be possible to cross the Woodford Valley except by a bridge. Mindful of the fact that the valley is 9 kms long and the bridge would be right at the southern end, the environmental impact on the valley would be restricted to one end of it. This project would be a real challenge for bridge designers to show how perhaps a ‘slim-line’ structure could be fitted without too much negative effect on the landscape. This is possibly the most sensitive area of the new scheme and it has to be accepted that without this crossing the new scheme would not be possible. Environmentalists will have to consider the overall environmental cost to South Wiltshire if an objection to the bridge stops the new scheme from going ahead. The environmental cost of accepting this bridge offers the opportunity of providing full protection to the World Heritage Site by avoiding the construction of the tunnel. It is probably one of the most important decisions that must be made in respect of environmental and archaeological protection.
      5. be close and will be seen from some parts, but not all, of the ancient monument at Old Sarum. It is believed that when the Beehive Park and Ride was planned to be close to the monument, there was no opposition from English Heritage.
      6. mean that with a road located along the eastern side of Salisbury and cutting through to the Beehive from St Thomas’s bridge there will be some detrimental effect on the properties in that area. It should, nevertheless, be understood that this scheme has been known in the area for some time and will be probably now be the only way that the City will achieve a bypass.
      7. require careful work to be carried out to reduce any adverse effect on severance, nature conservation, noise and vibration, byways protection and land use.
  12. Road Location
    1. The work carried out by the Highways Agency consultants into surveying the ground and the possibilities available has been outstanding. They have produced excellent drawings and they have shown the most encouraging co-operation throughout the six month study period.
    2. The fact that, in the final stage of preparation of deciding on the exact line, we have made some necessary changes and included options does not detract from the very sound work that they have carried out. It is accepted that in the area of the Bourne Valley we have moved the line to a position that was examined three years ago, but this has nothing to do with the Assessment Report. The central line D2 was taken because the Idmiston Parish Council accepted in principle the plan and the idea for its proper assessment over two years ago, but in January 2004 there was strong resistance against the line in this position, so it was decided to locate it further west. It is a good line and we see no difficulty should engineers wish to investigate. It certainly is better from the point of ‘land take’, in that it could co-locate with the A345.
    3. The route presented on the map at Appendix 1 shows the preferred line for the road and the possible flexibility of that line in parts is also represented. At this very early stage of any study it is suggested that this flexibility is essential if members of the public are to be consulted regarding their ideas and opinions of where the line should rest.
  13. Traffic and Economic Assessment
    1. There is little doubt that this is an area of vital importance in this Assessment: it holds the key to whether or not a plan is viable. Great care has been taken to examine the traffic data given in the Assessment and to-date we regret that there are unsolved problems.
    2. The starting point of any assessment must be the rationale behind the forecasting of traffic growth. In this case assessment the growth rates used are difficult to understand. It is important to ensure that the best historic data is applied to the problem of the forecast and in this respect we have the excellent work produced by Wiltshire County Council (WCC), in ‘The Travel Report, Wiltshire 2000’. (see Appendix 5). This edition gives the travel data for 2000, with historical comparisons over 1, 5, and 10 year periods. With monitoring collection from some 100 sites we can be pretty sure that there is good strong evidence from which to evaluate future growth. Indeed this is the basis of this work in any case.
    3. WCC reports that for main roads in and on the outskirts of towns in the county, it was observed that for the five year period Bradford on Avon had the highest growth rate at 3% per year and between 1999 and 2000 the highest annual growth rate was 2% for Calne. Comparing 2000 with 1999, there was little change in traffic volume in Kennet and West Wiltshire District Council areas. In the North Wiltshire and Salisbury Districts traffic decreased by about 1%. Comparing 2000 with 1995, the highest growth was observed in the West Wiltshire District with an equivalent average growth rate of just over 1%. The WCC Report on traffic concludes with, “Over the period 1999-2011, the target growth rates are 10% for both the Western Wiltshire Sustainable Transport Strategy Area and Salisbury Transport Plan Area, 17% for the Devizes Community Area Transport Plan, and 8.3% for the remainder of Wiltshire.”
    4. For Shrewton, which fits into the ‘remainder of Wiltshire’ category, 8.3% gives an annual target growth rate of 0.69% per year up to 2011. A Do-Minimum growth rate of 15.4% was also given, providing 1.2% per year. With this in mind a careful examination was carried out on the Shrewton area as this appeared to be the only area giving difficulty with traffic movement with implementation of the new scheme for periods up to 2008 and 2023.
    5. However, using slightly higher growth figures published by the Department of Transport it is found that the predicted growth produced in the Assessment Report Volume 2, figure 1.3, is much higher than either WCC or the Department of Transport’s forecast.
    6. To summarize, traffic growth in the Assessment does not accord with either the WCC or the Department of Transport forecast.
    7. Two examples using Volume 2, Figure 3.1 which illustrate the problems of misuse of data forecasting even at Do-Minimum are as follows:
      1. The A36 west of Wilton is well known as a very heavily used HGV road throughout the day. Figure 3.1 shows low and high flows for 2008 and 2023 to be well below those forecast for the A360 just east of Shrewton. Indeed at low growth in 2023 Shrewton is forecast to have 3,800 more vehicles each day that the A36. Furthermore, comparing the data available in the A36 Salisbury Bypass SACTRA Assessment August 1996, we see a figure of 14,000 under Do-minimum low growth. Acceptance of these figures would mean that not only does Shrewton A360 have a higher daily traffic flow than the A36 Southampton to Bath road, ,but since 1996 the traffic flows on the A36 have decreased by some 3,200 vehicles per day by 2008.
    8. The traffic flows used in a Traffic Model can have a major negative effect on a COBA economic calculation if they are forecast too high. Whilst we appreciate the complexity of combining base data from two sources and appreciate that it has been validated, we are very concerned that correction to input known traffic count information into the Model has not been carried out.
    9. The A343/A30, which is the ‘signposted’ route from the A303 east of Andover, is an important part of the traffic flow assessment that could have a major impact on the COBA. Today this is a very busy road with a heavy traffic load, particularly at peak times. If this road was to become overloaded by 2023 then it might justify the requirement for a dual carriageway. However, with the implementation of the new scheme this problem would have been solved; the A303 past Andover and its new run towards Salisbury would become the ‘signed Salisbury route’. This would considerably ease traffic on the A343/A30, thereby potentially reducing traffic accidents. If costed into the Traffic Model for the the new scheme it could make a significant difference to the COBA. To-date this major change has not been included in the Assessment and therefore no benefit obtained.
    10. The addition of cost for the additional 11 kms travel on the link may well be partly offset by the inclusion of the A343/A30 and possibly other roads too.
    11. The Published Scheme takes into account traffic growth from developments such as the Solstice Park and the potential new housing stock in Amesbury east. Does the Assessment new scheme contain similar input for housing stock at Old Sarum and the possible potential of a major traffic increase through Salisbury from the Dibden Bay project? Inclusion of development in the bypass corridor could have a significant beneficial effect on the economic viability of the new scheme.
    12. It is noted that the A36 Salisbury Bypass SACTRA Assessment 1996 at Table 4 shows the Present Value of Benefits of £106M at low growth and £180M at high growth. These high benefits must indicate that the Assessment COBA may well be incorrect at present.
  14. Work Costs
    1. It is important to look at the different costs produced in the Assessment and those shown at paragraph 8. The cost for the Published Scheme is £5.1M per km whereas those identified from recent constructions within the United Kingdom give a figure of £2.8M per km, with the major construction of two and three lanes being similar to the Published Scheme. It would be fair to accept that removal of the three lane element might reduce the cost downwards towards the £2.8M figure.
  15. An Exceptional Problem requires an Exceptional Scheme
    1. It is important to understand that the idea and principle of the new scheme is to use the already planned idea of a bypass for Salisbury by Wiltshire County Council and to provide a new road line from it to join the A303 east of Amesbury.
    2. Mindful that almost half of the bypass element of the new scheme is now being prepared by WCC for funding at some £32M, and the fact that almost certainly, at a date not too far in the future, there will be pressure to complete the remainder of a bypass, we should not fail to consider its relevance as a major contribution towards the new scheme.
    3. Use of the WCC ten year detailed study on growth could produce a much more realistic figure for forecasting the traffic growth at Shrewton, the only area with a traffic problem within the new scheme. Whilst the reduced, more accurate growth figure may allow the A344 element to transit the Packway without congestion, it is suggested that the ‘Western Through Route’ might be cost effective and very acceptable by the motorist.
    4. The considerable difficulties found in attempting to produce two separate Traffic Models and then join them together is fully appreciated. But recognition of the very high Net Present Values contained in the 1996 SACTRA Report should indicate that the possibility of ‘best value’ from the new scheme could be a real possibility, especially bearing in mind that at low growth the Published Scheme already has a fairly high negative value.
    5. The new scheme should be accepted as two parts: the bypass and the link. Moreover, the bypass part will probably be built at some future stage and the link may provide an opportunity not to be missed.
    6. The new scheme meets the requirements of national, regional and local transport policy. Whilst requiring motorists to drive further round a bypass, it is considered to be a small price to pay to fully protect the World Heritage Site at Stonehenge for future generations. The new scheme shows significant benefits, compared with the Published Scheme, not only in respect of our heritage, but also when considering the increasing traffic congestion and pollution being experienced by the people who live and work in the area. The new scheme has some disadvantages, such as the bridge crossing at the River Avon. But it may have to be recognised that in order to solve an exceptional problem it will be necessary to implement this ‘exceptional new scheme’, which achieves the aim of fully protecting the World Heritage Site at Stonehenge.